Titanium and ceramic Apple Watch variants spotted in watchOS 6 beta

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 54
    macguimacgui Posts: 2,469member
    ihatescreennames said:
    Personally, I couldn’t care less if someone knows what material my watch case is made of.
    I bet there are a lot of people out there that wouldn’t correctly identify the material on a ceramic Apple Watch but could still see that it looked nice. 

    A thing can be cool without everyone knowing about it.
    This ^. I buy stuff I like because I like it. If somebody else appreciates my taste, sure that's nice. But it's not at all necessary or even a consideration. That said, although pricey, that white ceramic is a thing of beauty. I bought the 1st Gen Stainless Steel but couldn't justify the Ceramic, at least for the S2 or S3. An S5 might be a different story.

    My SS case does scratch easily. A jeweler could probably buff it out. A Ti case would probably be more utilitarian in looks. I don't know that Apple would polish it, or how that would even look.

    svanstrom said:
    If you can’t tell the difference between the stainless steel and the aluminum you must be close to legally blind.  :D
    I have to wonder how that's even possible. The difference between Al and SS is practically night and day. I've got one of each and it's not even close. Maybe if he saw them side by side?
    StrangeDayswatto_cobra
  • Reply 22 of 54
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 13,101member
    eriamjh said:
    After paying extra for the black stainless Series zero to get the black link band only to have watch become... just a watch (with poor battery life and an unresponsive iOS interface), I am never paying extra for a fancy material on the same limited-life electronics.  Aluminum is just fine for me.
    I prefer stainless steel over aluminum any day. Plus I was able to resell my series 0 for something like a hundred bucks years later. My sport model got scratches on the shell and screen, so it’s back to SS on S4 and won’t go back. 
    edited August 2019 watto_cobra
  • Reply 23 of 54
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 13,101member

    Unless it adds either beauty or functionality, why pay for it?
    For me, that's the killer for the stainless steel version:   I can't tell it from the aluminum version and, since the aluminum version stays scratch free, it doesn't offer any real benefit (or is the crystal still saphire? -- that would be a benefit).
    You need your eyes checked if you can’t see the difference between polished stainless steel and aluminum. 

    Also, my steel had zero scratching on sapphire screen and wear on the steel looked more normal than the scratches on the space gray shell. 
    edited August 2019 Rayz2016watto_cobra
  • Reply 24 of 54
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 13,101member

    kkqd1337 said:
    Paying extra for these watches with better materials is a really poor investment. 

    tbh I can’t tell the difference between them, and no one cares either. You want a quality watch get a patek philippe.

    i’ve said It over and over, they need to make the watch thinner. Most comments I get when I wear mine is that it looks chunky. 
    Who says it’s an investment? It’s part tool, part jewelry. To me aluminum looks junky compared to steel. 

    Can’t imagine being told it’s chunky, as it’s thinner than the popular men’s watch fashion of having fat watches.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 25 of 54
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 13,101member

    kkqd1337 said:
    Paying extra for these watches with better materials is a really poor investment. 

    tbh I can’t tell the difference between them, and no one cares either. You want a quality watch get a patek philippe.

    i’ve said It over and over, they need to make the watch thinner. Most comments I get when I wear mine is that it looks chunky. 
    It’s less of a poor investment now that the Watch is becoming more mature as a product and the speed/feature gains are incremental. It’s possible there is no series 5 this year. Maybe these new offerings will be like the jet black iPhone 7. Something to keep excitement in the product when there’s no major update.
    Except their was. iPhone 7 gave us OIS in the non-Plus size foe the first time, as well as water gaskets. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 26 of 54
    kkqd1337kkqd1337 Posts: 468member

    kkqd1337 said:
    Paying extra for these watches with better materials is a really poor investment. 

    tbh I can’t tell the difference between them, and no one cares either. You want a quality watch get a patek philippe.

    i’ve said It over and over, they need to make the watch thinner. Most comments I get when I wear mine is that it looks chunky. 
    Who says it’s an investment? It’s part tool, part jewelry. To me aluminum looks junky compared to steel. 

    Can’t imagine being told it’s chunky, as it’s thinner than the popular men’s watch fashion of having fat watches.
    Yeah people often comment how bulky it looks compared to how phones seem to be getting slimmer and slimmer. That’s I guess what they compare it too. Phones are obviously a similar thickness, but not worn on your wrist, so different level of expectation there..

    to put it simply. Any premium material should be offering more than a cosmetic/robustness benefit 
  • Reply 27 of 54
    Are the screenshots verified? Find it strange the text around the outside is in Helvetica rather than San Francisco.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 28 of 54
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 13,101member
    kkqd1337 said:

    kkqd1337 said:
    Paying extra for these watches with better materials is a really poor investment. 

    tbh I can’t tell the difference between them, and no one cares either. You want a quality watch get a patek philippe.

    i’ve said It over and over, they need to make the watch thinner. Most comments I get when I wear mine is that it looks chunky. 
    Who says it’s an investment? It’s part tool, part jewelry. To me aluminum looks junky compared to steel. 

    Can’t imagine being told it’s chunky, as it’s thinner than the popular men’s watch fashion of having fat watches.
    Yeah people often comment how bulky it looks compared to how phones seem to be getting slimmer and slimmer. That’s I guess what they compare it too. Phones are obviously a similar thickness, but not worn on your wrist, so different level of expectation there..

    to put it simply. Any premium material should be offering more than a cosmetic/robustness benefit 
    Huh? Not following you there....what should the material do in addition to a robustness or cosmetic benefit, of which the non-Sport models indeed do? Steel, ceramic, and titanium all wear better than aluminum (and the ceramic and titanium better than steel), and also have cosmetic value. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 29 of 54
    kkqd1337kkqd1337 Posts: 468member
    kkqd1337 said:

    kkqd1337 said:
    Paying extra for these watches with better materials is a really poor investment. 

    tbh I can’t tell the difference between them, and no one cares either. You want a quality watch get a patek philippe.

    i’ve said It over and over, they need to make the watch thinner. Most comments I get when I wear mine is that it looks chunky. 
    Who says it’s an investment? It’s part tool, part jewelry. To me aluminum looks junky compared to steel. 

    Can’t imagine being told it’s chunky, as it’s thinner than the popular men’s watch fashion of having fat watches.
    Yeah people often comment how bulky it looks compared to how phones seem to be getting slimmer and slimmer. That’s I guess what they compare it too. Phones are obviously a similar thickness, but not worn on your wrist, so different level of expectation there..

    to put it simply. Any premium material should be offering more than a cosmetic/robustness benefit 
    Huh? Not following you there....what should the material do in addition to a robustness or cosmetic benefit, of which the non-Sport models indeed do? Steel, ceramic, and titanium all wear better than aluminum (and the ceramic and titanium better than steel), and also have cosmetic value. 
    Ok, so a premium material should allow a more premium design; with some sort of functional and tangible benefit.

    For example: 

    I own a Aluminium Watch 4. The steel version is identical. Both are 10.7mm thick; its bulky and ugly. It’s the Achilles heel of the Apple Watch design. 

    If Apple are proposing a titanium or ceramic version at a premium price point I would expect that it’s main design flaw would be improved. To my eye, a 7mm watch would deserve a premium price point.
  • Reply 30 of 54
    Chet-NYCChet-NYC Posts: 2unconfirmed, member
    I have a Series 2 in stainless steel. The main reason for paying more for that model was I saw a video of drop test with a aluminum model and the stainless model. The aluminum one broke apart, the stainless one did not. Also, the display glass on the stainless one is sapphire- much harder scratch. My watch has been in a pool about three times a week since I got it almost three years ago and it has hit the pool wall or a lane baffle several times- and not one scratch or nick to show for it. Upgraded materials do have a purpose. There's a reasonable chance I will upgrade to the Series 5 near the end of this year, and I'll most likely do the same- get a model that isn't aluminum.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 31 of 54
    kkqd1337 said:
    kkqd1337 said:

    kkqd1337 said:
    Paying extra for these watches with better materials is a really poor investment. 

    tbh I can’t tell the difference between them, and no one cares either. You want a quality watch get a patek philippe.

    i’ve said It over and over, they need to make the watch thinner. Most comments I get when I wear mine is that it looks chunky. 
    Who says it’s an investment? It’s part tool, part jewelry. To me aluminum looks junky compared to steel. 

    Can’t imagine being told it’s chunky, as it’s thinner than the popular men’s watch fashion of having fat watches.
    Yeah people often comment how bulky it looks compared to how phones seem to be getting slimmer and slimmer. That’s I guess what they compare it too. Phones are obviously a similar thickness, but not worn on your wrist, so different level of expectation there..

    to put it simply. Any premium material should be offering more than a cosmetic/robustness benefit 
    Huh? Not following you there....what should the material do in addition to a robustness or cosmetic benefit, of which the non-Sport models indeed do? Steel, ceramic, and titanium all wear better than aluminum (and the ceramic and titanium better than steel), and also have cosmetic value. 
    Ok, so a premium material should allow a more premium design; with some sort of functional and tangible benefit.

    For example: 

    I own a Aluminium Watch 4. The steel version is identical. Both are 10.7mm thick; its bulky and ugly. It’s the Achilles heel of the Apple Watch design. 

    If Apple are proposing a titanium or ceramic version at a premium price point I would expect that it’s main design flaw would be improved. To my eye, a 7mm watch would deserve a premium price point.
     And what do you expect the battery life to be like on a 7mm thick device? 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 32 of 54
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,904moderator
    I’m wondering when titanium dropped from being a strategy metal, mined mostly in Russia.  When I was in the Air Force in the early 80s ami got hold of a small thin piece, about the length but half the height of a credit card.  And very thin.  Nothing I or my friends could do to it would bend it.  Very tuff stuff.   
    muthuk_vanalingamwatto_cobra
  • Reply 33 of 54
    mobirdmobird Posts: 759member
    melgross said:

    Appleish said:
    Never got a scratch on any of my awatches with the SS case and black diamond coating. Or the bracelet.
    I agree, I purchased my S3 Stainless Steel Space Gray when it became available from Apple. I wear it every day and do not coddle it whatsoever. I'm retired so the Watch does not exist in a vacuum or protected environment. It is exposed to all sorts of activities. There is no apparent wear and tear or scratches.
    I purchase things for me that provide me with value and purpose, I really don't give a flip about trying to impress anyone with a damn watch.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 34 of 54
    rcarlton said:
    Asking because I do not know - does the ceramic case have any effect on the signal to/from the cellular radio vs metal case?
    Yes. It's better for cellular signal. The back of all Apple Watches are ceramic to promote better conductivity with your physiology. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 35 of 54
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 13,101member
    kkqd1337 said:
    kkqd1337 said:

    kkqd1337 said:
    Paying extra for these watches with better materials is a really poor investment. 

    tbh I can’t tell the difference between them, and no one cares either. You want a quality watch get a patek philippe.

    i’ve said It over and over, they need to make the watch thinner. Most comments I get when I wear mine is that it looks chunky. 
    Who says it’s an investment? It’s part tool, part jewelry. To me aluminum looks junky compared to steel. 

    Can’t imagine being told it’s chunky, as it’s thinner than the popular men’s watch fashion of having fat watches.
    Yeah people often comment how bulky it looks compared to how phones seem to be getting slimmer and slimmer. That’s I guess what they compare it too. Phones are obviously a similar thickness, but not worn on your wrist, so different level of expectation there..

    to put it simply. Any premium material should be offering more than a cosmetic/robustness benefit 
    Huh? Not following you there....what should the material do in addition to a robustness or cosmetic benefit, of which the non-Sport models indeed do? Steel, ceramic, and titanium all wear better than aluminum (and the ceramic and titanium better than steel), and also have cosmetic value. 
    Ok, so a premium material should allow a more premium design; with some sort of functional and tangible benefit.

    For example: 

    I own a Aluminium Watch 4. The steel version is identical. Both are 10.7mm thick; its bulky and ugly. It’s the Achilles heel of the Apple Watch design. 

    If Apple are proposing a titanium or ceramic version at a premium price point I would expect that it’s main design flaw would be improved. To my eye, a 7mm watch would deserve a premium price point.
    You’ve done a great job listing your opinions as fact. Alas, they are not. 
    macguiwatto_cobra
  • Reply 36 of 54
    kkqd1337 said:
    kkqd1337 said:

    kkqd1337 said:
    Paying extra for these watches with better materials is a really poor investment. 

    tbh I can’t tell the difference between them, and no one cares either. You want a quality watch get a patek philippe.

    i’ve said It over and over, they need to make the watch thinner. Most comments I get when I wear mine is that it looks chunky. 
    Who says it’s an investment? It’s part tool, part jewelry. To me aluminum looks junky compared to steel. 

    Can’t imagine being told it’s chunky, as it’s thinner than the popular men’s watch fashion of having fat watches.
    Yeah people often comment how bulky it looks compared to how phones seem to be getting slimmer and slimmer. That’s I guess what they compare it too. Phones are obviously a similar thickness, but not worn on your wrist, so different level of expectation there..

    to put it simply. Any premium material should be offering more than a cosmetic/robustness benefit 
    Huh? Not following you there....what should the material do in addition to a robustness or cosmetic benefit, of which the non-Sport models indeed do? Steel, ceramic, and titanium all wear better than aluminum (and the ceramic and titanium better than steel), and also have cosmetic value. 
    Ok, so a premium material should allow a more premium design; with some sort of functional and tangible benefit.

    For example: 

    I own a Aluminium Watch 4. The steel version is identical. Both are 10.7mm thick; its bulky and ugly. It’s the Achilles heel of the Apple Watch design. 

    If Apple are proposing a titanium or ceramic version at a premium price point I would expect that it’s main design flaw would be improved. To my eye, a 7mm watch would deserve a premium price point.
    You’ve done a great job listing your opinions as fact. Alas, they are not. 
    Well I agree with the other poster... Apple Watches are bulky and ugly.

    A titanium version should allow for a more streamlined watch.

    I do agree with you though that aluminum vs steel are very different in appearance...

    I did a bit of research on ceramics and determined that there is enormous variation... conductive/non-conductive.  It all depends on what it’s made of.  But, it’s pretty much universal ceramics are hard but brittle.  Making a ceramic watch is a lot more challenging and probably not worth it... which is probably why Apple stopped.

    Ceramics for a better wireless signal looks real (vs metals) but not as good as glass or plastics. 
  • Reply 37 of 54
    AppleExposedAppleExposed Posts: 1,805unconfirmed, member
    ALL technology becomes outdated so it's silly to complain about premium options.
    macguiwatto_cobra
  • Reply 38 of 54
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    melgross said:
    razorpit said:
    I’m still hoping for a liquid metal edition...
    I was going to post on that too, and I suppose I am. It’s been a very long time since Apple first became involved with Liquidmetal. I remember getting involved in several arguments with people here, in several separate threads about when it would be used, and for what. Even when the inventor, in an interview, said that it would be years before becoming practical for these types of products, some people said he didn’t know what he was talking about (as though they did).

    a watch, as I’ve said before, is the perfect product for this. It’s small and uses little material, and can be expensive enough to make it worthwhile. Frankly, at this time, I’m surprised that we’re not seeing something from Apple, other than the tiny sim rejection tool made out of it that Apple sent with the phones what now seems to be ages ago. I still have mine.

    maybe they’ve abandoned it. I hope not. I still would buy the watch in a liquidmetal case, and bracelet.
    What about glasses frames made with Liquidmetal? Might be a good material for their (possible) AR glasses product.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 39 of 54
    kkqd1337 said:
    kkqd1337 said:

    kkqd1337 said:
    Paying extra for these watches with better materials is a really poor investment. 

    tbh I can’t tell the difference between them, and no one cares either. You want a quality watch get a patek philippe.

    i’ve said It over and over, they need to make the watch thinner. Most comments I get when I wear mine is that it looks chunky. 
    Who says it’s an investment? It’s part tool, part jewelry. To me aluminum looks junky compared to steel. 

    Can’t imagine being told it’s chunky, as it’s thinner than the popular men’s watch fashion of having fat watches.
    Yeah people often comment how bulky it looks compared to how phones seem to be getting slimmer and slimmer. That’s I guess what they compare it too. Phones are obviously a similar thickness, but not worn on your wrist, so different level of expectation there..

    to put it simply. Any premium material should be offering more than a cosmetic/robustness benefit 
    Huh? Not following you there....what should the material do in addition to a robustness or cosmetic benefit, of which the non-Sport models indeed do? Steel, ceramic, and titanium all wear better than aluminum (and the ceramic and titanium better than steel), and also have cosmetic value. 
    Ok, so a premium material should allow a more premium design; with some sort of functional and tangible benefit.

    For example: 

    I own a Aluminium Watch 4. The steel version is identical. Both are 10.7mm thick; its bulky and ugly. It’s the Achilles heel of the Apple Watch design. 

    If Apple are proposing a titanium or ceramic version at a premium price point I would expect that it’s main design flaw would be improved. To my eye, a 7mm watch would deserve a premium price point.
    You do realise that Apple has already packed the tech in the smallest possible size they could fit it into?

    How do you expect "a premium material should allow a more premium design" to actually work? Right now your choices are that the premium material either changes the laws of physics, that Apple simply doesn't include all required tech to actually make the watch work, or that Apple simply can't even offer more premium materials until the tech also allows them to significantly shrink the size of the watch…
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 40 of 54
    Chet-NYC said:
    I have a Series 2 in stainless steel. The main reason for paying more for that model was I saw a video of drop test with a aluminum model and the stainless model. The aluminum one broke apart, the stainless one did not. Also, the display glass on the stainless one is sapphire- much harder scratch. My watch has been in a pool about three times a week since I got it almost three years ago and it has hit the pool wall or a lane baffle several times- and not one scratch or nick to show for it. Upgraded materials do have a purpose. There's a reasonable chance I will upgrade to the Series 5 near the end of this year, and I'll most likely do the same- get a model that isn't aluminum.
    I’m the same as you, my screen hasn’t got a scratch on it in 3 years and I’m a manual worker so this was a must for me. It has become slower now so it’s definitely time for an upgrade. 

    For anyone to say the stainless is identical to aluminium is blind. Stainless is shiny and the aluminium is more of a matte silver (and looks cheap IMO)

    I’m excited to see what new features are added, hopefully some kind of new sensor.
    watto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.